any comments or questions? i know we have asked many already. seeing none i have one -- commissioner vietor. >> sorry. yeah, i had a question just about the davis and associates contract and just to refresh my memory because i know we took this up at our puc meeting and we had a robust discussion around the scope of activities and we really wanted to hear from them and this goes to the supervisor's comments about their focus and their sweet spot if you will, but really to hear back, sort of cap the initial contract with them to -- so they are able to provide a more robust plan and meet the issues raised today and their plan for roll out and education to the various communities and addressing some of the issues around language so it's not jargon like and

simplified and these pieces that we talked about in depth at our commission meeting and can you refresh us to the terms are? isn't that what they're doing and come back and this is the bull budget once we get that first piece of work done with them, correct? >> right. so what we were hoping is that after today's presentation you have a higher comfort level with what this whole plan looks like opposed to hearing about it in pieces. you have the full plan that you would be comfortable at our next commission meeting releasing the balance of the funding and allowing us to go forward with that contractor. the commission had limited us to $100,000 early task order with davis and associates. that allows -- has allowed us to consult with them in putting this program together. that allows us to

begin the work to be able to launch the poll in january that we talked about here, so hopefully with this fuller conversation and description and the written plan itself that you have before you will feel comfortable with action -- not at this meeting but at the next meeting of the public utilities commission to release funds. we're not asking you to release the funds today. we're asking the public utilities commission to endorse the overall framework of this plan. >> thank you. >> great. commissioner olague. >> i wanted to thank you for all of your work again and for answering these questions that i know you have had some influence over, but it's not your entire -- it's not all of you -- all of the decisions made around outreach haven't been on you. >> no, not at all. i'm not the

outreach person. >> thank you for being gracious in how you responded, but basically we do have city policies again where we have 100% renewable goal in the next 10 years and i think my whole intention was to make sure that this whole conversation is how we're going to reach these goals of 100% renewable energy in that time frame. >> right. >> and certainly that's why i had some concerns around making sure that the values of the cleanpower sf program are ones that are always emphasized because again this is a conversation that has been in this country really since -- for a long time, but certainly in the 70's it took on a greater level of discussion, but then the conversation sort of didn't go anywhere. i think it was

jimmy carter was the person person to put solar energy panels on the roof, and then i mentioned a couple of times someone named emory lovins who wrote a book "soft energy path" and took on the issues of fossil fuels and coal and sustainable wind and solar and other sources and just 30 years later we're still -- >> still plugging away. >> still at the beginning of the conversation, so for years i guess san franciscans really haven't had an opt in -- certainly not an opt out choice, and so sometimes we talk too much about opt in i get a little nervous, so anyway i thed to thank you. >> you're welcome. >> before going to public comment i have one other question and that is we received

a lot of -- some misinformation as we getting to the vote here back in september about this program, and harm this program could cause, a lot of it misleading, and i expect that next year as we're doing our notification and education effort that we could experience similar misleading information. appreciate not from pg&e because. >> >> because they have to follow the code of conduct, but organizations related to pg&e. i am wondering how we're anticipating a response to such an effort to mislead and make beguile people in san francisco? >> we do expect we will have lots of questions from customers, and we're really hoping to encourage folks to the extent they have questions, they hear things that are concerning to talk to us. we really want an opportunity for folks to make an informed decision, and we will stay very true to the need to educate and not mislead. we

hope that other participants in the dialogue will as well, but it will be a challenge for us to make sure folks are getting accurate information and really being educated about this choice. >> very good. thank you. let's go on to public comment. this is on these three items. i don't have any cards before me. we will do three minutes per person. >> good afternoon commissioners. eric brooks representing san francisco green party and the local grass-roots organization "our city". hopefully you have read the email, all of you that advocates sent. there are concerns about okaying this very kind of light framework today that doesn't have a lot of detail in it. i want to start out to get to those concerns about talking about what

commissioner torres raised in the code of conduct with pg&e. we saw during the 2010 prop 16 attack on the clean energy programs and community choice in california that it didn't matter that pg&e didn't use rate payer funds they were able to argue that entire $46 million plus campaign was funded by their stockholders, so they are going to run a multi-million dollar robust campaign in san francisco against this program, and it looks like their plan to roll out the 100% green project hits about the same time we roll this out at the end of 2013. i think that's the timeline for them, and it's very important to note that if we go forward prematurely with a marketing plan that is not based on good robust outreach to people of color, low income communities,

people of different languag seniors and also based on the 10, 11-dollar premium w pg&e electric is offering $6 the consumer is not going to understand and yeah that is cheaper but ours is better and to the consumer that is coke and pepsi and coke is six bucks and we cost 11 bucks and coke is pg&e the customer is going to pick pg&e and that comes to what i wanted to highlight in this the information that local power has been develop to link the build out with the price points and the marketing and the outreach we're going to be doing just has been put on the table and in lpi has shown that we

can actually roll this program out even in phase one with competitive prices to pg&e, and that would profoundly change this entire outreach model. the rate fairness board when realized this information was coming forward postponed their decision to the sfpuc and we have to analyze that information and see if it will change the way we market the program before we okay the outreach plan. that is crucial. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> my name is francisco costa and envir

-- environmental justice advocacy and many residents in the bay view participated in community choice aggregation and perhaps one person here in the auditorium that knows what i am talking about. michael [inaudible] lynn brown, jerad bloomfield and others. we make trips to sacramento and we do what we could in the bay view. we put solar on all 58 homes and so on and so forth. in the beginning of this discussion i heard something about climate change and then i was paying attention to this conversation and there's a lot of fluff. so much fluff it gives you a headache. now, if you look at a map and some of you have done the outreach, whatever way you

did the outreach, if you want to pay attention to the carbon footprint you have to do anything for the people that are impacted in district 10 and 11 and if you haven't done that to the best of your ability you have failed, so don't tell us in the areas that are green, which is where mostly the rich people live, where they send all their garbage, where they send all their sewage to which is in district 10 and you do service -- when it comes to outreach. that has to be ratified immediately. now, we need empirical data from this so-called consultants because sfpuc has this habit to have consultants. we saw this when they tried to put the

combustion turbines and seen it again and again and the emphasis is on consultants so sfpuc has to learn in san francisco where we have many advocates and environmentalists that we need to have san franciscans doing the outreach for san francisco, and we will be paying attention to this and once we notice something -- which we have been doing we will write about t now, clean energy has to be discussed in the various facets that clean energy is produced. not only here in the united states but brazil and other areas and to find out really how much does that cost and finally let me say mr. chairman that we do have hydro electricity as part of this and we need to see how that is implemented. thank you very much. >> thank you. i have --

additional cards to name? jessica dur man ackerman and david mccord. >> hi. i am jessica ackerman and conservation staff with the sierra club and i am here to represent the 30,000 members in the bay area. i want to thank the supervisors for talking about the importance of this program and climate change and the importance of the program at for outreach. this is opportunity for economic growth but only if it includes local build out and we're seeing strong benefits and the installation of clean energy, energy efficiency, and leveraging other regional sources and we are concerned that the pln has a stagnant rate of power on the open market and -- dear the duration of the shell contract. a proposal is being delivered right now that

will shape or improve the developments and resources and financial modeling and make the economy more sustainable and provide economic benefits to our people and effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions. the way cleanpower sf has passed the board of supervisors is as opt out program and the language used in the outreach plan changes the character of the program the way the legislators envisioned it when passing cleanpower sf. we are concerned changing it in way discourages residents and more cost to the ratepayers. we hope we can take the basic structure of the document and required notifications and adjustments and also engages residents in civil discourse and community power but the lifetime of this program. thank you very much. >> thank you. i have one other

card. anyone else that would like to comment please come forward. thank you. >> i am david mccord and el cerrito and the chair of the sierra club bay chapter energy subcommittee, and the bottom line is that the plan is not yet ready for approval. for one thing the staff needs to fill in the details about just how you're going to reach out to the various communities in the city. supervisor olague that touched on that. and second the plan does not take into account the impacts of the roll out and pricing scenarios being developed by local power which

you have contracted with to do this, and the rate fairness board wants to study these before recommending the rates which will affect what you tell people in your surveys and outreach. so we respectively ask that you direct the staff to return to you in december or january with a really detailed outreach program that clarifies the outreach strategy and integrates local build out and jobs, and infrastructure and incomes into pricing and outreach. thank you. >> hi folks. nice to see you all again. i think it's been a number of months since i

addressed you briefly. of course i speak on behalf of the advocates and we have been very actively involved in this issue and we sent you this later with our considered opinion which i hope you take seriously, serious reservations that we have as advocates representing the community with this particular plan. i want to give personal feelings about this. i respect all my friends on this part of the table and i don't know how they convinced themselves what they're talking about makes sense to anybody but themselves. i mean we're talking about doing surveys and reaching out to 20,000 people and red and green and wait list. we need 60 to 90,000 people in the program. there is no discussion how we go from the 20,000 people and might indicate an interest and roll it out to them and how you get to

the 60,000 to 90,000 people and so everybody can opt out. i don't know if they convinced themselves that's great but if they can convince you this makes sense i don't know it's a sad day. it's going to cost $1.4 million to try and sell something that no one in their right mind can sell. it's like dressing up a pig in princess clothes and we're going to go on a door step and explain some way or another how our 100% green is more costly coming from shell north america and arguably the largest climate criminal and more green and pg&e product. that's called the same thing. if you think you can sell that -- well, i think you're going to need $5 million probably per

person. it's just ridiculous. when you have a good product you don't need to spend millions of dollars to sell it. that's the bottom line. and you paid $400,000 to have people come and look at this and say "well, here are some real alternatives". the alternatives are not only long-term alternatives to develop a program that bills 51% renewables within five years, communicate shares program and interest people in investing in this build out program. that even provides scenarios that hetch hetchy power could be used right from the beginning to mitigate the price increases, and moving ahead like this never happened. we're having discussions in the stakeholders meetings and other places and how to incorporate this new information. why in the world

would you not do that? >> thank you very much. any other member of the public who would like to comment on these items please come forward? and seeing no one come forward we will close public comment. i want to thank puc and ms. hale for your presentation. thank you very much and i really appreciate the work that has been put together in developing the framework for outreach. i actually really believe that we need to move forward quickly as a city. i want to make sure we're successful in the program. while we don't have all the details of the early notification and education plan there, the framework is clear and i think it's a good starting point to move forward for the city and i believe that while we have had comments about talking about caution i think they're well meaning how to have a

successful program but i think the success of the program is that we roll out quickly with the notification and the education plan. that's going to be most meaningful. i also want to make sure that we're really clear that the effort is really working in the deep green areas first and foremost where we know a particular target audience is for the message and we know how to craft that message for them as well. i think that is going to be significant. we're not reaching out to every population in san francisco from the get go but the deep green area is where we need to focus the efforts on. this plan incorporates that and i believe it's the right way to go. i would like to move forward approving something today that can later be implemented early next year and hopefully we can move that in that direction. commissioner olague. >> yeah. i just wanted to comment that i agree with mr. brooks that the onslaught

of opposition that this campaign probably has to deal with will be very severe and i think certainly -- there is the ledgeally ballot in the bay and prop eight and there were ballots in the bay never counted and all of that and who knows? it could be true obviously. there is a website "change.org" and misinformed about shell oil and it's connection to this program and maybe it's not completely misinformed but certainly under lying there is no mention of clean power and how we have no currently and relying completely i will say hard energy sources and fossil fuels and that sort of thing, and even in my own personal campaign there was a hit piece that came out about how i was in bed with shell oil and nigeria

and active vifts there and we know that is true and disappearing and what not and i don't think we should under estimate the type of political quagmire that this program will find itself in and the attacks are unwarranted and misinforming and certainly i'm not suggesting they're all coming from pg&e, but certainly there is a motivation to maintain the monopoly they have held in the city around providing energy, so with that being said i just wanted to close my comments and i am glad next week i think we're at lafco hearing the task force recommendations. that is critical and sometimes we pass the policies and our actions never conform with the policies that we pass, so if we're serious about reaching that goal in 10 years i think we really need to get serious and

that's why cleanpower sf is so important, but in closing i want to go back again and harp on my jimmy carter issue of earlier and i'm going to take this quote. it says "soon after jimmy carter installed solar panels on the white house. a generation from now i think this is in the 70's or early 80's the solar heater can be a surcosity, a museum piece, a example of a road not taken, or a small part of one of the greatest adventures under taken by the american people and harness the power of the sun and move away from the crippling dependence on foreign oil, and again at that point we can say that the solar panels were a museum piece. i am hoping cleanpower sf isn't this interesting idea that creeped up and disappeared because of all the

misinformation and whatever that certain interests will probably have in seeing this sort of plan not succeed, so again when i was 16 my first venture into politics was through this group called "people for safe energy" in fresno and i was 17 and our first venture was to go to the power plant and protest the fact they wanted to have a nuclear power plant sitting next to an earthquake fault. in japan i think the conversation around nuclear power is shifting again and there are challenges to it and this is not new. this conversation has been around forever and that is pg&e and nuclear power and all of that and here we are in 2012 still having the conversation, so i mean i wouldn't under estimate again the type of opposition,

however subtle or not, that this program is going to have to conwith. that's why it's critical how we accurately inform people in the city around the value of this program. >> thank you commissioner olague. president carter also wore a button down sweater when he made that statement. >> did he? >> it's important to note that ronald regan removed those solar panels from the white house. i am unclear on the agenda and on ours it doesn't mention any possible action item, but on the document for the public utilities commission it does and i think we want to make sure we're either today or the next puc meeting but i hope that's the plan, the framework of the plan can be adopted. >> i would like to make a comment. >> commissioner torres. >> first of all i never

believed the hit pieces against you commissioner olague. >> thank you. >> and the man that defeated carter thought redwood trees caused pollutions and number three i don't think the staff is naive and to suggest that is inappropriate. they have been working very hard in this effort -- >> i -- >> i'm not talking about you. i am talking general in response. i believe the process is organic and i believe they do take into consideration every input as possible and this process and i know the chair and the other members of the commission know is not over yet. it is still evolving and that is an important element to put out there. this process is still evolving and organ and i can need continued input to whatever surveys and approaches we take are reflective of those issues and the other issue raised is san franciscans should be doing outreach in this support and i

can't support that more than enough because it's always my experience that sometimes we bring in outside forces -- not that we have here, but outside forces that don't know the community, communities of color and speak other languages and in addition to english and those are sensitive issues i think the staff has taken into consideration and that's an important statement to make. i appreciate your comments and i read your letter and i appreciate the comments but i think it's important to keep within the context of how the staff and commission has operated and quite frankly how members of the board of supervisors has operated with the best of intentions because at the end of the day we're accountable to the tax payers and the rate payers of city and county of san francisco. >> thank you president torres. just a clarification on the

action item before us if there is one or for the later meet something. >> the sfpuc commission agenda provides for them to discuss and take action, so our understanding is that the commission secretary would call the roll for the sfpuc so that they could vote on this agenda item for lafco it was just a discussion item. >> thank you. commissioner vietor. >> yes and i appreciate all the public comments that have been made and the comments too from this body and all of the work that the puc has done. i have been on the public utilities commission for four years plus and i know this cleanpower sf issue -- i think it's been eight years, nine years in the coming, and when i came on there was really this sort of sense